Understanding that the following are not your words, but wuzname's, but since you did praise them:

[Here Gary quotes this post from "God Save the Queen" (the blog, not the national anthem) which I commented on here. Gary's words are in normal type; Mr GSTQ's in italics. What a lot of quotes-within-quotes I seem to be having.]

The correlation between present-day democracy and the level of colonial/
imperial experience is striking. Countries in category 1 are overwhelmingly
free. Categories 2 and 3 are mostly free."

[Back to Gary's opinion now:]

One -- meaning "me" -- feels a need to note that this "overwhelmingly free"
experience didn't work out too well for many of the already-there inhabitants nor their descendants, in category one, nor did matters do much better, until the last few seconds of history (comparatively speaking) in category 2.

It seems at least worth noting in passing.

I liked the calm understatement of the last line. Any extended treatment of the subject of empire that does not give full weight to the fact that human beings do not want to be ruled by foreigners is worth very little. Yet there is no inconsistency between thinking conquest a bad activity and observing that it may, through the diffusion of improved technology, institutions or ideas, have good consequences for the descendants of those conquered. May have. In the worst cases the conquered didn't leave any descendants.

The wheel makes some strange turns. The descendants of Africans captured by slavers and taken to servitude in America are on average better off than the descendants of their neighbours who evaded capture. Arguably some of that differential was caused by the devastating effects of the slave trade*, but that does not make the observation invalid.

*I'm trying and failing to remember/Google a quote about regions of Africa where no white man had ever been being convulsed and blighted by slave-taking wars.